Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Well you've heard some evidence in this thread. From me, and from Keyite and from other members.

Just because it isn't in the form of a peer reviewed paper doesn't make it nothing.

No, I haven't heard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. And we're back to anecdote < evidence. I am not saying your testimonials are "nothing", but I don't believe they carry the same weight as information collected from careful study.

Just to illustrate what I am saying: If I came on here and said, "I got HIV from a mosquito. I am certain that is what happened." Would my saying that automatically qualify that statement to have equal footing as documented research that would contradict such a claim?

EDITED TO SAY: I am simply going to choose to err on the side that has more solid backing for it. I'm not going to say something is completely out of the realm of theoretical possibility, but I have to counter "possible and maybe even probable" statements like the one above.

I believe the answers given by Andy, Ann, Rapid, etc.. in the "Im I infected" forum related to blow jobs are correct. If someone is asking you "Am I going to get hit by a bus tomorrow?" the answer cannot be "yes", the answer cannot be "no", the probability of getting hit by a bus is so low that you cannot possibly tell people "there is a slight risk, so when you see a bus be careful", that wouldn't make sense and wouldn't help anyone. "Be careful in general, know when to cross the street, look left and right before you cross" is a better answer.

"Yes possible" and "yes probably" are some pretty muscular assertions.

Your documented evidence to back those statements would be?

Look: I am not trying to shout down anyone who wants to say that they got it this way or that. In fact, I think it is important to look into it- not so much for we who have already crossed over into Pozville, but for those who haven't to be better armed to protect themselves.

I just keep wanting to see something, ANYTHING concrete to back up this kind of declaration. There appears to be science to support the other side of the argument. I'm waiting to see it for statements like these as well.

One thing about this thread and posts like that one: It will likely make AM more of a one-stop shop for all things HIV. Folks will be able to get unsubstantiated fear fodder completely in-house. No need to shop at The Body for it or anything.

Hey Hunter,

There is NO evidence that transmission is impossible via oral routes (for the sucker, not the suckee...), therefore you have no documented evidence to prove it isn't possible. You see -- we are now in a circle. There is no concrete evidence that it is possible and none that it is not possible. Now I happen to agree with the vast majority of people in this thread (and a number of highly regarded doctors) that while it may be possible, it is probably very, very rare. Clearly, the science points to it being exceedingly rare (because, remember, no study that I've read says it is impossible).

I will say once again -- one should never use anecdotes to make a sweeping assumption -- but neither can you discount anecdotes completely, because these anecdotes are pretty much the same thing as "outliers" that are found in "peer reviewed studies". Just because it is an anecdote doesn't mean it isn't true. People are unique and what might not happen to the vast majority of people, might happen to one or two. This isn't black and white and, dare I say, medicine isn't black and white.

We are back to folks needing to take note of ALL DATA and figure out where there comfort level is with "risks".

No, I haven't heard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. And we're back to anecdote < evidence. I am not saying your testimonials are "nothing", but I don't believe they carry the same weight as information collected from careful study.

Just to illustrate what I am saying: If I came on here and said, "I got HIV from a mosquito. I am certain that is what happened." Would my saying that automatically qualify that statement to have equal footing as documented research that would contradict such a claim?

Actually, what we've put together here is a case series - which is a level of evidence as described by the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM), coming in at Level 4. Whilst it's not a systematic review, it is evidence.

Troubling case reports that don't quite fit are where a lot of randomised control trials and systematic reviews come from.

To use your mosquito analogy, which incidentally further belittles the testimony you've heard here, if you came on here and said that I'd say you were nuts. If another person joined you I'd think they were taking the piss. Another would stop and make me think. Furthermore, if I had friends who were convinced they had gotten HIV from a mosquito, and if there was a reasonable physiological explanation for that happening I'd want to do an RCT. All of these things exist with oral transmission of HIV.

Speaking of which, I've just been looking at the references originally cited by Jonathan. In particular this one:

Sexual risk behavior and risk factors for HIV-1 seroconversion in homosexual men participating in the Tricontinental Seroconverter Study, 1982-1994.

Published in the American Journal of Epideimiology, Dec 15 1997. I can't understand why this has been given as a reference against oral transmission of HIV to the receptive partner, because just from the abstract it seems that oral receptive intercourse is independently associated with an increased incidence of seroconversion in men with no history of anal sex, or just with one partner. I quote:

"To more carefully examine risk associated with receptive oral intercourse, analyses were done in a subgroup of men who reported no or one receptive anal intercourse partner. The risk (OR) associated with receptive oral intercourse partner increase was 1.05 (95% CI 1.0-1.11)."

The odds-ratio >1 means that it's more likely to happen in this group, and the CI, although it =1at its lower end is more than likely to be statistically significant. The abstract concludes:

"Although the prevalence of major risk factors has decreased over time, the associations of these behaviors and HIV infection persist, suggesting that these risk behaviors remain important avenues for public health interventions."

If anything, this study is showing that oral transmission is a very real possibility, and opening the door to further studies.

"Further belittles the testimony" on here, my fanny. As was CLEARLY STATED there, that scenario was used to illustrate to inequality between the weight of anecdotal evidence and information gathered through careful study. It does not have equal weight. It WILL not have equal weight until there is data behind it.

There are millions of people ready to testify the truth of any given religious doctrine. That doesn't make any single one of them so. Lots of people will swear to UFO's and alien abductions as well. Show me. And there currently isn't any 100% evidence that that is impossible either, but I'm still going to maintain my skepticism. My issue isn't with saying something is or isn't theoretically possible. It's with this mentality that simply having enough people tell something makes it acquire increased levels of truth.

It belittled it by equating the opinion of forum members on this subject with getting HIV from a mosquito. It's calling people liars but with more words.

I notice you didn't comment on the abstract, which would appear to contradict both your arguement, and the purposes for which it has been quoted previously. And that is data in that paper, whichever way you want to cut it, and no number of lazy metaphors are going to change that.

As I've said previously. I don't think this mode of transmission is likely, or probable. But it does happen - and as (and if) people get the message about safe sex more and more, this mode of transmission is going to become proportionally greater. Get used to it.

I haven't commented on the abstract because I haven't had a chance to read through it yet. I'm doing other things in addition to this here- not living and dying by what is getting posted in this thread.

And "lazy metaphors"? Who is belittling who here? I've said two or three times now that I am not dismissing theoretical possibility outright. I'm dismissing the idea that something acquires an increased truth just by the amount of people willing to swear by it. The mere telling doesn't make something so.

And to continue with the lazy metaphors: At least with alien abductions, I suspect people are more forthcoming about being anally probed than some are being on here.

I haven't called anyone a "liar". I've merely said that I wished to err on the side that had more available documentation supporting it. And that talk does not directly equal data. That's all.

It belittled it by equating the opinion of forum members on this subject with getting HIV from a mosquito. It's calling people liars but with more words.

I notice you didn't comment on the abstract, which would appear to contradict both your arguement, and the purposes for which it has been quoted previously. And that is data in that paper, whichever way you want to cut it, and no number of lazy metaphors are going to change that.

As I've said previously. I don't think this mode of transmission is likely, or probable. But it does happen - and as (and if) people get the message about safe sex more and more, this mode of transmission is going to become proportionally greater. Get used to it.

M.

Calling someone lazy isn't the nicest way to approach a discussion either, Matt.

The reason why the study you quoted from is used as an illustration of the minimal of definable risk is because none of the negative participants seroconverted.

Nothing in science is 100%, because the door is always left open for the consideration of additional data which may or may not alter the thesis. This does not mean that its application is subjective, which by definition is the reverse of the scientific approach.

We owe science enormous debts in the age and societies in which we live, the meds being perhaps the most obvious example.

And I gotta say that the absence of evidence is not evidence. One can prove that something happened, but can never prove that something did not.

Brent(Who lives in the modern world)

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

YO! Milker is right. Things are heating up here again after simply exchanging ideas and opinions for a while.

Matt, I don't see where those who have expressed the idea that giving oral can be risky have either actually or by inference been called liars. So let's not go THERE any further with hackles raised and raising verbally.

Ditto with terms like "lazy." This is not scientific but I don't need to do a study to know that it's likely to light flames.

Clearly there are passionately held opinions here. In some ways I don't see they are actually so far apart or at least not altogether so.

One opinion seems to lend a bit more forceful weight to anecdotal reporting than another, especially in terms of numbers, but neither seems to have ruled out the need for more serious study and consideration of the issue.

I would love to hear something from some other people who PMd me saying they were infected by giving head... And, no, I think the discussion is quite civilised! After all, we're only humans! And men! Not little demoiselles!

This does not mean that its application is subjective, which by definition is the reverse of the scientific approach.

Brent,I don't think this is exactly true. The underlying data may be objective, but few see all the underlying data. What most see is the interpretation of the underlying data, which is subjective. We have all seen different people present the same study differently simply by how you frame "the question" and/or the statistics that you use. So while I do agree with your overall point, I'm afraid that science isn't as black and white as we might like.

And I gotta say that the absence of evidence is not evidence. One can prove that something happened, but can never prove that something did not.

You are absolutely correct here. So how can anyone say that people have NOT gotten HIV from oral sex? Now I'm not saying you said this, because I don't think you did, but others are certainly implying that perhaps some aren't forthcoming on whether they've had anal sex as a risk factor.

I will say again, I think oral transmission is possible but rare -- and like Andy stated, that isn't that far off from what most are saying on here. I wonder if this causes such angst in some because it makes them have to reconsider some of the "risk" that they feel is acceptable in their sex lives?? I think this is a very good discussion to be having not because it's important how someone got infected, but because it is important that people keep reassessing what risks they are comfortable with and which they are not. I know that my partner and I had another discussion on oral sex last night -- we're still in the same place, but the discussion was good. And for that, I need to thank everyone who has posted in this thread. Of course, we discussed so long, that we didn't get to "practice" anything........

Brent,I don't think this is exactly true. The underlying data may be objective, but few see all the underlying data. What most see is the interpretation of the underlying data, which is subjective. We have all seen different people present the same study differently simply by how you frame "the question" and/or the statistics that you use. So while I do agree with your overall point, I'm afraid that science isn't as black and white as we might like.

You are absolutely correct here. So how can anyone say that people have NOT gotten HIV from oral sex? Now I'm not saying you said this, because I don't think you did, but others are certainly implying that perhaps some aren't forthcoming on whether they've had anal sex as a risk factor.

I will say again, I think oral transmission is possible but rare -- and like Andy stated, that isn't that far off from what most are saying on here. I wonder if this causes such angst in some because it makes them have to reconsider some of the "risk" that they feel is acceptable in their sex lives?? I think this is a very good discussion to be having not because it's important how someone got infected, but because it is important that people keep reassessing what risks they are comfortable with and which they are not. I know that my partner and I had another discussion on oral sex last night -- we're still in the same place, but the discussion was good. And for that, I need to thank everyone who has posted in this thread. Of course, we discussed so long, that we didn't get to "practice" anything........

Hugs,Mike

Mike-

It goes without saying that any human construct will have all the limitations of humanity present. And I've said before that any thesis that cannot accommodate doubt is dogma, which I find abhorrent

I know that, given enough time, energy and interest, nearly anything can be scientifically shown to be feasible, but with astronomically low probability. Does this constitute enough evidence to cause a shift in the prevailing paradigm?

Risk, contained in quotes or otherwise, really is about the choices we make in our lives. I personally choose higher-risk activities for myself for many reasons. But I serosort to minimize the potential risks in others and eliminate any risk in infecting a neg. Big boys make their own assessments and live with the consequences of their risks.

Brent(Who owns what he posts)

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

I agree with you completely - expecially around everyone's individual choices. I am not trying to argue a change in any prevailing paradigm. I have only continued to post in here because I do get a little ruffled when folks simply dismiss others out of hand. When people say that "science proves them wrong", which is not really the case. Science is simply showing that their assertion happens rarely.Again -- I have not seen you do that, so this isn't pointed at you.

As my personal opinions in this will only fan the flames higher, I've refrained. That doesn't mean that I don't have any

If I were in a serodiscordant relationship I'm not sure what I'd do. Truth be told, getting a blowjob isn't one of my top-ten pleasures anyway, at least with so many rank ammeters professing competence in the field. Edmond White one wrote that "it's more of a vocation than a real job".

Brent(Who has other agendas to pursue)

Logged

Blessed with brains, talent and gorgeous tits.

The revolutionary smart set reads The Spin Cycle at least once every day.

I'm on the same page as Brent...or at least reading from the same trashy magazine. The debate of does it or doesn't it happen matters not a whit where my personal sex life is concerned. You won't see a wrapped BJ with me- period. I'll state that outright.

And I've never said here that "science proves you wrong". I've only said that I sure would like to see some science to prove 'em right. And that the mere telling and retelling does not equate to what I define as evidence.

I agree that this is an important discussion. I said so above when I said it matters most of all to the negative world so they could make the most informed decisions. I only said that anecdotal scenarios would not be enough for me to alter how I would present the risk assessment to others. If there is more concrete support for this, it's time to ante up.

I should no doubt leave this alone, but I just can't help wondering: public health authorities, HIV prevention agencies, ID and other doctors across the world all appear to deem oral sex (giving it, not receiving it) a LOW risk. Contrast that with kissing or indeed mosquito bites which they categorically deem NO risk.

Why is that? Global conspiracy or have they simply not yet caught up with Jonathan's selection of publications?

I told my story to the doctor at the hospital where i am being followed. She believed my story, she had since been successful in inserting that there is a risk factor in fellatio on the flyer about HIV prevention. She started campaigning this message, she approached a leading figure in the gay world to help her get the message across, she was rejected as the other person did not want to start a panic. Remind me of the person who first wanted the world to know that it is round !!

Keyite, if you want your message to have following and support , please do not mention any names !! Mentioning of 'Jonathan' is wrong, singleing him out will start another war !! i am sure you do not want that as we are all here to do mature discussion.

I should no doubt leave this alone, but I just can't help wondering: public health authorities, HIV prevention agencies, ID and other doctors across the world all appear to deem oral sex (giving it, not receiving it) a LOW risk. Contrast that with kissing or indeed mosquito bites which they categorically deem NO risk.

Why is that? Global conspiracy or have they simply not yet caught up with Jonathan's selection of publications?

There has already been conclusive study to determine that kissing and mosquitos are not of risk...and yes, YES already- the nature of oral sex makes it a different event than kissing or getting bitten by a mosquito. So no, there is no Global Conspiracy- and I imagine they are all caught up with J's reading list. Apparently, I must explain this bit once again: I was using that mosquito scenario to illustrate my argument against giving anecdote the same weight as reviewed data.

I said before that it shouldn't have the same wieght and I still say so. Just like I don't put much weight into the reports that there are now numbers coming forth through PM to also say they had the whammy put on them by giving head. I'll acknowledge that when they say so publicly. And I don't buy that people are "too scared" to come forth and say so in this thread for fear of reproach from others. Like Matty said, has it really come to this? I haven't seen anything in this thread yet that would warrant anything like that, but maybe I'm tougher than most about such things. If that is the case, I really feel for them. They will undoubtably have a tough go of it not only in the HIV realm but with life in general if they can be cowed into corners that easily.

even so....the same thing i said before in that regard holds true, in my opinion. if people are too intimidated to even speak out for themselves on a web board, for heaven's sake, then it doesn't bode well for their ability to fend for themselves in the world at large. (again...in my opinion.)

Is it really any wonder why some people wouldn't want to engage in the type of back and forth we have witnessed on this topic? I have abstained mainly because these days this topic isn't really why I come here, not that it isn't important, but I come here to try and give some support where I can, and gain support from other's experiences. That is the reason I PM'd Keyite...to let him know that I believed him, and had a similar experience, and to let him know he was by no means alone in this or any other way. And I'll say Keyite has done just fine without me posting.

I'll also say that this is the closest I've ever seen the board come to an actual civil discussion on this topic, but it did seem to take a bit of time to get there. I'm hoping it can stay in the civil realm, but I see no need to 'call people out'. I have a feeling we're all plenty strong enough to deal with HIV in the real world whether we post on this topic or not.

Most of all I'd like to emphasize what has been noted a few times...that despite the heated exchange there is quite a large area of agreement on the topic by everyone. The different prevailing positions really aren't very far apart.

Lastly, my resolve not to get involved in a back and forth on this topic is very real, so I'll say now that this will be my only post in this topic.

Oh for Heaven's sake, just suck the damned dick and either take it out of your mouth before the guy comes or squeeze it at the base and no semen will come out. It won't be much different than sucking a big (hopefully) finger done this way. Besides, some people are so bad at giving a blow job that they don't even need to worry about becoming infected this way.

Okay - I apologise for using the adjective "lazy". It was inflammatory and ill thought out.

I do feel quite strongly about this subject, and the word "liar" and a few more inflammatory labels were bandied about in the direction of Keyite at the beginning of this thread. Equally, I feel that acknowledging a theoretical possibility one moment, and then equating that possibility to infection via a mosquito, or alien abduction, is disingenuous.

Confining myself to the science, although I haven't read the paper I mentioned earlier as I have lost my Athens password, it took me 30 seconds to read the abstract on pubmed. If none of the people in the study had seroconverted after they controlled for factors via anal sex, then it would have been impossible to get an odds-ratio >1, which was mentioned in the abstract. I would urge people to read this abstract, and comment.

I'm not denying that I had anal sex in the window period before seroconversion, but my experience leads me to the inescapable conclusion that either HIV can be transmitted (rarely) orally, or condoms are not 100%. Now I know condoms work. I was careful, but unaware of the risk oral sex posed to me. Too be honest, I'd rather hold the contrary view - as I would worry less about my partner. As it is, I tend to steer clear of the "Am I Infected?" forum, as I have a much lower threshold in my risk assessment than Andy and the others - a product of my experience, which isn't justified in 99% of the people asking for advice.

Once again, I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I'm much happier debating the science. And I would welcome opinions on the paper cited earlier in the thread.

One last time: I was not equating a theoretical possibility to the mosquito scenario. As I have said like three times now already, I was using that to illustrate my assertion of why simple anecdotal evidence does NOT hold the same weight as data. I also used the examples of religion and alien abductions- just that having several people swear to something doesn't make it so.

Okay, I'm going to unlock my jaw from this thread now. I have this virus in my blood, and I know how it got there. If you can't see that this is not analagous to mosquitoes, the existance of God, or alien abduction than I'm not going to continue to point out why it isn't so.

I've tried moving this debate on to talk about data. As you persist in not commenting about it, I can only assume that I've run into some entrenched belief of yours that is not amenable to reason, or discussion.

I will continue to represent my point of view, and those of a significant minority of forum members, in the future. I don't feel that the view "you can't get HIV from giving a blowjob" is right, and I will challenge it where I find it.

"Sigh" is right. How you have somehow managed to remain unable to comprehend what I was illustrating is beyond me. Especially since I have taken pains to clarify it several times now. I will strip away all adornment to my statements and gear it down even lower for you. Maybe this time it will click.

Now...without metaphors, similes, allegory or any other type of illustration technique:

Anecdote does not equal concrete data, and a claim doesn't become truth based on the number of people willing to repeat it.

There. No mosquitos, deities or space aliens. Has that at last simplified it enough?

And I am completely amenable to reason and discussion. As for the commenting on the data, that has since already been done well enough in Brent's and other's post right below that. There's no need to rehash it right back again.

I have no partiular entrenched belief here other than the one right above this post- the one about anecdotes right above that I hope all have grasped by now.

And speaking of "no need to rehash"....this thread is TIRED now. Beyond tired. I've said all I have to say on the matter, and I think most have. But to review for the slower members of the class:

- I never completely disputed theoretical possibility, just giving too much credence to anecdotal evidence

- I never equated oral transmission scenarios with mosquitos, God or E.T. I just used those things to try to illustrate a point about anecdotes, but apparently that somehow flew too far over the heads of a few.

Confining myself to the science, although I haven't read the paper I mentioned earlier as I have lost my Athens password, it took me 30 seconds to read the abstract on pubmed. If none of the people in the study had seroconverted after they controlled for factors via anal sex, then it would have been impossible to get an odds-ratio >1, which was mentioned in the abstract. I would urge people to read this abstract, and comment.